In case you missed it, Newsweek had a cover story on surrogate mothers. It was balanced and offered a lot of new information such as the disproportionate number of surrogate mothers who are young, military wives. They have health insurance that covers the procedure. Also, surrogacy allows them to earn money and help someone.

Despite some people denouncing it as exploitive, it made me think the opposite: I would consider becoming a surrogate for my closest family or friends. Also, if I needed the additional income, I could think of many worse ways to make money than give this wonderful gift to another couple.

An Effed Up Story: This is unspeakably tragic. Despite his wife’s protestations, a Maryland courtroom ruled that a mentally ill man was entitled to see his children. The man in question, Mark Castillo, went to a hotel, drowned the couple’s three children and then tried – unsuccessfully – to kill himself, according to the Washington Post.

He is in custody now. But what troubled me about this story was his history of making threats to his wife, including killing the children. I think I would have skipped town before handing over my children to this man. I can’t imagine what is running through that poor woman’s head right now. Shudder.

What Patient Rights? I was dismayed at the personal conduct of the gynecologist mentioned in this reader’s letter to New York Times Magazine’s “The Ethicist” column. Her gynecologist has asked her to waive her right to sue in favor of a “binding arbitration to settle any potential disputes,” or the ob-gyn will not treat her. Here is why the practice is unethical, according to ethicist, Randy Cohen:

The law may allow it, and (except in an emergency) medical ethics permit doctors to choose their patients, but a doctor’s criteria for choosing are still subject to scrutiny. Your doctor has instituted a dismal policy that compels patients to surrender a basic legal right in order to receive medical care.

If a single physician were so skittish about malpractice suits (or so uncertain of her own skill) that she would see only patients who would forgo access to the courts, no problem: you could walk down the street to another practitioner.

But if all, or nearly all, doctors make the same demand, there’s nowhere else to go; a fundamental right is eradicated. Conduct that is merely inconvenient if pursued by a few people can become intolerable when widely adopted.

Universal healthcare anyone?